He's endorsing his sperm...er, his son...as his replacement, although his great-nephew had already announced that he intended to run for the position.

Get yer popcorn! High drama here!

The Detroit News wrote:Conyers III, 27, has never held elected office and caused an ethics problem in late 2010. The congressman (John Conyers Jr., his father) had to reimburse the U.S. Treasury $5,682 for his son’s misuse of his taxpayer-funded Cadillac Escalade.

“There is no excuse for the nonofficial use of a government vehicle,” Rep. Conyers said in a December 2010 statement. “I have taken steps to ensure that it will not happen again.”

Conyers’ endorsement of his son was seen as a snub of (State) Sen. (Ian) Conyers, the great-nephew who told the New York Times and ABC News early Tuesday about the congressman’s planned retirement.

The potential family feud quickly escalated when Sen. Conyers retweeted – but later deleted – a link to a 2010 blog highlighting controversial social media posts by Conyers III and suggesting his family “needs to do damage control immediately.”

The posts included multiple photos of Conyers III, then underage, posing with bottles of alcohol, including one picture of him holding Moet behind the steering wheel of a Cadillac.

Maybe he's matured in the 10 years since he was a 17-year-old. Maybe. [Edited to say: Actually, in the 7 years since he was a 20-year-old. My math was way off. However, I'm less lenient about a 20-year-old's immaturity and entitlement than I am about a 17-year-old's immaturity and entitlement.]

I went looking for J.C. III's aforementioned "controversial social media posts," and found an article mentioning his mother's ethical problems, too:

The Daily Caller wrote:John Conyers III., the son and appointed successor of John Conyers’ Jr., the disgraced Democratic politician who announced his resignation on Tuesday, is a former attempted rapper who bragged that his friends are drug dealers and his dad “is a f***ing player.”

The son’s brief rap career included lyrical gems such as “My n***as turn grams into grands” and “Ay f**k making a living bro, I’m trying to make history/So picture me letting the news nit-pick at me.”

The aspiring artist also rapped about some of the challenges he’s had to live through, such as when his mother, former Detroit councilwoman Monica Conyers, was sentenced to three years in jail for taking bribes, or when Conyers Jr. had to repay the U.S. Treasury for Conyers III’s misuse of a taxpayer-funded Cadillac Escalade.

Most of Conyers III’s brief rap career appears to have taken place between 2012 and 2013.

Conyers III raised eyebrows in 2010 when he described his father, who is now accused of being a sexual predator, as a “f***ing player” on Twitter.

“My dad is a f***ing player and reckless as hell! He just got at this doods wife super low-key,” the congressman’s son tweeted.

Snort. I can see why his father thinks he's more qualified than anyone else to follow in his own footsteps and uphold his principles, legacy, etc.

orthogon wrote:Interesting how, unlike other crimes, "attempted rap" is considered a more serious offence than its fully executed variant.

Care to explain?

The daily caller article seems insulting, unnecessarily so. For example, he endorsed his son, but the article says the son was appointed. He wasn't appointed, and there will be a special election. His nephew is also running, Ian Conyers.

I don't like how Conyers blurred the line between resigned and retired immediately, or how he is trying to save face. He doesn't admit any wrong doing or apologize about his behavior. Any investigation or punishment is going to fizzle now that he isn't in Congress.

My problem isn't with John Conyers III's "attempted rap" per se. Rap is an art form with its own conventions, some of which include glorification of a stereotypically transgressive and badass lifestyle. So ordinarily, I wouldn't take it at face value.

However, it's hard NOT to take John Conyers III's anthem of unrepentance for his prior and very public misbehavior at face value. He's LITERALLY pointing to his having gotten into trouble for his poor judgment as some sort of badge of honor. Sorry, no, I don't find shamelessness to be an attractive quality in a prospective public official.

And then bragging on social media about his father's shady shenanigans with "some dood's wife," as a similar badge of honor? That shows not only admiration for transgressive behavior, but also that this guy can't be trusted to keep a secret.

Nope, I'm not impressed.

Here's the Washington Post's assessment of John Conyers III's qualifications, or lack thereof. A quoted statement:

Tuesday evening in a statement posted on Twitter the younger Conyers said that he had not decided whether to enter the race but hoped “to come to a decision by the new year — once I have taken the time to thoroughly listen to our community.”

Conyers was one of his father’s fiercest defenders as the 88-year-old faced increasing pressure from Democratic leaders to step aside when a growing number of female former aides accused him of mistreatment and unwanted advances.

“It’s very unfortunate to see him fight so long for so many people and to automatically have the allegations assumed to be true,” John Conyers III told reporters last week, according to NBC affiliate WDIV. “And of course, with sexual assault, women are to be believed. But in this instance, he has no history of this.

“And I think that if we’re not going to make [Sen.] Al Franken resign when we have evidence of him groping a woman while she was asleep … it’s disconcerting to me to see the way my father is being treated after he’s given so much to this country, not just for black people but for people alike.”

If I may quibble, a.) Franken didn't touch her. I don't like that he pretended to, but what he did [Edited to say: on that particular occasion] wasn't assault, and b.) Conyers has "no history of this"? What was that hush money settlement about?

orthogon wrote:Interesting how, unlike other crimes, "attempted rap" is considered a more serious offence than its fully executed variant.

Care to explain?

My bad: I was being flippant, but I forgot to include the appropriate emojus

It was just the way this was phrased; it sounded as though "attempted rapper" was a criminal charge that he'd been convicted of:

ObsessoMom wrote:

The Daily Caller wrote:John Conyers III., the son and appointed successor of John Conyers’ Jr., the disgraced Democratic politician who announced his resignation on Tuesday, is a former attempted rapper [...]

Another thought, since I apparently have a bad case of can't-shut-up-itis this morning: is it possible that the 88-year-old John Conyers Jr. just got confused? Maybe he got his grand-nephew and his son mixed up. Here's what the grand-nephew, State Senator Ian Conyers, said in yesterday's New York Times article:

In a phone interview, Ian Conyers said that his great-uncle encouraged him to run for the seat days before deciding to step down. Now the two younger Conyerses will most likely face off in what may become a battle over the legacy of Mr. Conyers, considered an icon to many black people.

“I said, ‘Sir, if you decide that you’re going to retire, give me a heads-up because I’m going to run for your seat and keep doing the work that you have been up to,’” Ian Conyers said. “He said, ‘Absolutely. You go for it. Run.’”

And then the congressmember endorses his son instead. Huh?

* * *

From the same NYT article:

And last week, an Ohio Army veteran became the fifth woman to accuse Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, of inappropriate touching. Senior House Democrats have also begun calling for Mr. Franken to resign.

Hence my editing of my comment on the infamous Franken photo, above.

Also a summary of others in hot water:

The decision by Representative John Conyers Jr. came as several other lawmakers face allegations of inappropriate behavior.

Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas and the most senior House member for his state delegation, announced last week in an interview with The Dallas Morning News that he would not seek re-election after sexually suggestive online messages that he sent to a constituent came to light.

Representative Blake Farenthold, Republican of Texas, is facing pressure after it was revealed last week that he used $84,000 in taxpayer funds to settle a sexual harassment claim with Lauren Greene, his former communications director. She accused him of regularly making comments to gauge her interest in a sexual relationship, including saying he was having “sexual fantasies” about her.

[...then the Franken snippet quoted above...]

Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina and a member of the House leadership, hinted at a double standard in the intense pressure Mr. Conyers faced.

“I’m a little bit interested, though, in why the speaker of the House called for his resignation and had been radio silent on Blake Farenthold,” he said. “His settlement was three times what Conyers’s was. He’s accused of the same thing. And the speaker has not said a word. What is the difference?”

Great idea for a movie. A man is facing a tidal wave of sex assault claims, and so becomes president to be too busy to have to deal with the courts, so the statute of limitations runs out. Starring Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller.

On reading that link text, I was going to post that they could just schedule everything to coincide with any tee time he schedules but I read the article and discovered the lawyers are already on top of it

Wang said Zervos' team would be flexible with the president's schedule and would agree to videotaped depositions if necessary. She said Trump "does not do his job 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

"We can take a deposition down to Mar-a-Lago in between him going to play golf," she said, a jab at Trump's frequent visits to his Florida resort.

CorruptUser wrote:Great idea for a movie. A man is facing a tidal wave of sex assault claims, and so becomes president to be too busy to have to deal with the courts, so the statute of limitations runs out. Starring Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller.

Becoming president to avoid prosecution is standard in several European countries. It worked for Jacques Chirac and helped Silvio Berlusconi, though in the latter case the solution appears to have been legislating his way out of the situation rather than simply claiming immunity. Either way, it's good to be the King.

If the congressman's depiction is accurate, this doesn't seem that awful (still wildly inappropriate). The accusations haven't been publicly released though, so it could be worse than what he's saying. Based on Paul Ryan's reaction, it's probably worse.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

All of this is leading me to feel like those dystopian sci-fi societies where men and women are separated at birth and forbidden from ever interacting with each other aren't such a bad option. Apparently we're not mature enough as a species to interact with the opposite sex reasonably or responsibly.

Nah, we just need some sort of minor but guaranteed cost, somehow, for talking to a girl that isn't interested, so that the "shotgun" approach of harassing 100 women on the street to find the one that isn't annoyed by it costs too much, but talking to a few girls that have a decent chance of being interested isn't prohibitive.

Now since this is a dystopian novel setting, it'll be a fixed cost of, say, $10, so that the rich assholes can be the only ones hitting on girls while poor men are shit out of luck. I mean, we sort of have that now in bars where the guy has to buy a drink, but that isn't exactly safe.

slinches wrote:Apparently we're not mature enough as a species to interact with the opposite sex reasonably or responsibly.

I really don't think the entire species is unable to deal appropriately with rejection. (The inability to deal with rejection being the reason why so many sexual harassers seek targets who are not truly free to decline or consent.)

I think the perps appear to be more numerous than they really are, because each perp tends to have multiple victims.

Also, I don't see anything wrong, per se, in gauging the interest of a prospective sexual partner who is truly free to decline or consent. But there's a huge difference between expressing interest that may not be reciprocated, and refusing to take no for an answer, or not even asking before touching or kissing.

Yeah, I was being a bit hyperbolic. The problem isn't really that pervasive and splitting up the sexes wouldn't really solve it anyway. It's just that with all the news out there it feels like, as a man, I have to walk on eggshells around women. I know I'm not the only one and that it's likely to cause some other issues. Not that those issues will be worse than allowing sexual harassment and assaults to continue. It's just that forcing that sort of social change will cause some turmoil. I just wish we would do something to proactively minimize the turmoil.

The problem is when you are trying to treat them like humans while still trying to ask them out. Basic rule is don't ask them out unless there is an actual reason the person would date you. Random person on the street? Who the hell are you and what do we have in common? I just want to get from my apartment to the grocery store and back without being harassed. Person at the same professional convention? Oh, you are an attorney too; what field of practice? Tort, really me too! Say, want to grab a cup of coffee while we discuss our best horror stories?

eran_rathan wrote:Why does it make you feel like you have to walk on eggshells? Here's a really easy way around that:

Spoiler:

Treat women like human beings. Don't be a dick. Its not hard, seriously.

I don't know if it's as easy as "Don't be a dick." More like "If you're inclined to dickishness, know whether you're attractive enough to get away with being a dick to this particular person." (Lots and lots of people, I'm sorry to say, really do seem to love it when attractive people subject them to dickish behavior. I'll never understand why. I'm sure most of us have friends whom we've told, "Look, that person is treating you terribly and you should really give him/her a wide berth," which only seems to make them want him/her more....)

But for a lot of people, the power dynamic is a key component of sexual attraction. So I don't see that ever going completely away.

To paraphrase Zach Wienersmith, 95% of people want someone hot, 100% just want anyone with higher social status. Note that the abusive asshole in movies is always depicted as more attractive and of higher social status than our relatable, down to earth protagonist. Titanic, Wedding Crashers, Corpse Bride, etc.

In her initial statement, Nelson said that Moore had written the entire inscription in her yearbook. “He wrote in my yearbook as follows,” Nelson said. “ ‘To a sweeter and more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Christmas 1977. Love Roy Moore, Olde Hickory House.’ And he signed it ‘Roy Moore D.A.’ ”

The headline I posted and the story were explicit as to the facts. But this is about appearances, not truth. It feeds the narrative that Moore would like to maintain. She hurt all the other accusers by putting herself in the position where her credibility can be questioned.

slinches wrote:Knowing absolutely nothing about the Moore thing. That yearbook inscription doesn't sound like anything damning. Is there some sort of connection to other comments?

It's used as supporting evidence that Moore really likes young girls, which is also corroborated by being banned from the mall for being a creeper, and the 3 other women who said he was a creeper. But since she lied about that one extra line, then it gives wavering conservatives an excuse to drink the partisan koolaid harder. Remember, a standard rapeworthy scandal is worth 13 points, but Alabama is a 20 to 50 point redder than normal state. So pre yearbook inscription lie, Jones was a little behind. Depending on how it shakes out, the lead might grow, or random walk. Off year elections are highly variable.

A paper from Nicholas Chad Long estimated that Senate incumbents from 1974 to 2008 involved in scandals lost an average of 12.6 percentage points off their reelection margin.

The yearbook isn't important except to people looking for excuses to vote for a pedophile. The easiest way to rationalize it is to assume the news is fake, and the liberals are making it up. Hence seizing upon the extra lines added to the yearbook signature.

eran_rathan wrote:Why does it make you feel like you have to walk on eggshells? Here's a really easy way around that:

Spoiler:

Treat women like human beings. Don't be a dick. Its not hard, seriously.

I don't know if it's as easy as "Don't be a dick." More like "If you're inclined to dickishness, know whether you're attractive enough to get away with being a dick to this particular person."

I'm going to pretend that you're not intentionally paraphrasing Trump's 'When your a star, they let you do anything you want. I just grab them by the pussy.' speech and that I'm misunderstanding it.

Yes, it really is that easy. It's not about ' getting away with it.'. It's about treating women like actual human beings. Seriously, this is kindergarten level stuff - keep your hands to yourself, respect other people, etc. If my six year old autistic kid gets this, why is it so hard for adults who ostensibly know better?

"Does this smell like chloroform to you?""Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

I'm not trying to lecture anybody but I'm a woman and I don't mind some level of jerkiness in a relationship. Especially if they're attractive. There are so much components of human sexuality and what we find attractive that, "Don't be a jerk" doesn't actually cut it as a broad solution to inappropriate sexual advances. To start with: They don't think they're being jerks. To compound that some women (like myself) enjoy being treated badly to some degree. It may be weird but it's true.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

I don't think that dickish/jerkish behaviour is intrinsically attractive in a man, it's just that assertive, ambitious, not-caring-what-people-think behaviour is, and that can easily spill over into dickishness.

Then factor in that people tend to judge those they like on their intentions (vs. those they dislike on their actions) and it's quite easily to rationalise away dickish behaviour as 'he doesn't really mean it' / 'he's been under stress lately' / 'he doesn't know any better' / 'he's just messing around' etc.

slinches wrote:I haven't been following the Moore story. If there have been multiple independent accusations and other evidence, I'm not questioning that.

It just seemed like the yearbook note wasn't damning in isolation.

It isn't. But it won't be considered in isolation. All they need to do is introduce doubt. They want Moore, so they are looking for a reason to believe that the women are lying. Much in the same way that Sardia wants to believe that Moore was banned from a mall. The mall swears there are no records, so it comes down to rumor and innuendo. It's convenient for him to believe.

Ginger wrote:I'm not trying to lecture anybody but I'm a woman and I don't mind some level of jerkiness in a relationship. Especially if they're attractive.

Yeah, as one of those unattractive guys this supports my observations.

slinches wrote:I haven't been following the Moore story. If there have been multiple independent accusations and other evidence, I'm not questioning that.

It just seemed like the yearbook note wasn't damning in isolation.

It isn't. But it won't be considered in isolation. All they need to do is introduce doubt. They want Moore, so they are looking for a reason to believe that the women are lying. Much in the same way that Sardia wants to believe that Moore was banned from a mall. The mall swears there are no records, so it comes down to rumor and innuendo. It's convenient for him to believe.

Ginger wrote:I'm not trying to lecture anybody but I'm a woman and I don't mind some level of jerkiness in a relationship. Especially if they're attractive.

Yeah, as one of those unattractive guys this supports my observations.

a former mall worker, Becky Gray, told ABC News she believes she got Moore banned by complaining to her manager about his “creepy” advances toward her.

The story in The New Yorker seems to track with the accounts of women quoted in the 9 November 2017 Washington Post report, which originally broke the story. Two of the women, Wendy Miller and Gloria Thacker Deason, aged 14 and 18 respectively at the time, said they originally met Moore at the mall — Miller when she was working there as a Santa’s helper, and Deason when she worked at a jewelry counter there.

Per the Post, the mall was a place where Moore was often seen alone:

According to colleagues and others who knew him at the time, Moore was rarely seen socializing outside work. He spent one season coaching the Gallant Girls, a softball team that his teenage sister had joined, said several women who played on the team. He spent time working out at the Gadsden YMCA, according to people who encountered him there. And he often walked, usually alone, around the newly opened Gadsden Mall — 6 feet tall and well-dressed in slacks and a button-down shirt, say several women who worked there at the time.

So he's seen at the mall a lot, and not at work per several colleagues. Only 1 person claims he got Moore banned from the mall. The other two claimed they met him at the mall before they got assaulted by him.

A former clerk for Judge Alex Kozinski said the powerful and well-known jurist, who for many years served as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, called her into his office several times and pulled up pornography on his computer, asking if she thought it was photoshopped or if it aroused her sexually.

eran_rathan wrote:Why does it make you feel like you have to walk on eggshells? Here's a really easy way around that:

Spoiler:

Treat women like human beings. Don't be a dick. Its not hard, seriously.

I don't know if it's as easy as "Don't be a dick." More like "If you're inclined to dickishness, know whether you're attractive enough to get away with being a dick to this particular person."

I'm going to pretend that you're not intentionally paraphrasing Trump's 'When your a star, they let you do anything you want. I just grab them by the pussy.' speech and that I'm misunderstanding it.

Yes, it really is that easy. It's not about ' getting away with it.'. It's about treating women like actual human beings. Seriously, this is kindergarten level stuff - keep your hands to yourself, respect other people, etc. If my six year old autistic kid gets this, why is it so hard for adults who ostensibly know better?

I see where you're coming from, but no, it really is more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

If you want to simplify things, it really comes down to consent.

A mutually satisfying power differential is, I think, okay.

A relationship in which only one of the parties is having a good time, at the expense of the other, is not.

The fact that Trump's targets, by his own admission, didn't want to be groped, but would grudgingly "let" him do it anyway because of his star power, was a big turn-on to him. Trump was clearly reveling in his targets' non-consent.

There's a big, BIG difference between that situation and a woman (or man) actively seeking the attention of a known bad boy (or bad girl) by whom they EXPECT to be treated with disrespect.

Personally, I find dependability, thoughtfulness, and kindness to be extremely attractive qualities in a partner, and I've been very happy in my 25 years of marriage to the sweetest and nicest guy on the planet. But this absolute gem of a partner was still unhappily single in his late twenties (when I met him) because so many other women find those same qualities boring. They want more drama and excitement in their romantic lives. Ugh! Not me!

Bottom line: human beings are complicated, so sex and love are complicated, too.

eran_rathan wrote:Why does it make you feel like you have to walk on eggshells?

I don't know about the specific case but there are an lot of people that aren't anywhere near as skilled at reading social cues as others assume they should be. "No" may mean "no" but when someone assumes that they have told someone "no" without actually telling them "no" it can make the rejected person look like someone who won't take "no" for an answer when they are still trying to determine what the answer is. Nobody wants to be perceived as socially incompetent or as the guy who can't take "no" for an answer so "eggshells".

slinches wrote:Knowing absolutely nothing about the Moore thing. That yearbook inscription doesn't sound like anything damning. Is there some sort of connection to other comments?

That is actually a pretty good reason to believe it isn't counterfeit. If the evidence against Moore is manufactured, it has been done with such a degree of subtlety that it probably isn't even going to cost him the election.